Use Executive Coaching to Revisit Your Own Commitments

The commitment that needs scrutiny may be yours

As year-end reviews and 2027 planning converge, executives face a particular test: whether to renew something they personally championed. It might be a market entry, an operating structure, a strategic partnership or a promise to the board.

The financial case matters. So does the leader’s relationship with the original decision. Once a commitment becomes associated with your credibility, reviewing it can feel like reviewing your competence. That is where coaching can serve a concrete business purpose.

The question is not whether you were wrong when you made the decision. It is whether the evidence still supports it now.

Harvard Business Review’s “The Hidden Traps in Decision Making” describes how sunk costs and confirmation bias can distort judgment. Past investment can influence choices that should depend on future value, while leaders may seek evidence that supports an existing position.^[1]

A coach should not decide which investment survives. That belongs to accountable executives and the relevant governance process. The coaching task is narrower: help the leader examine whether personal defensiveness is restricting that process.

Put one live commitment under examination

Do not make this an abstract conversation about being more open-minded. Bring one material commitment to the next coaching session. Choose something with a near-term decision, meaningful consequences and a position you have publicly defended.

Use three documents: the original rationale, the latest operating evidence and the decision required next. Keep confidential material within agreed boundaries.

Then work through four questions:

• What did I believe had to be true for this commitment to work?
• Which of those assumptions remain supported, and which have weakened?
• What would I advise if another executive owned this decision?
• What evidence would justify changing my position?

The third question separates business judgment from ownership. The fourth tests whether the review is genuine. If no plausible evidence could change your position, the discussion is not yet a review.

“Why Good Leaders Make Bad Decisions” examines how emotional attachments, self-interest and misleading experience can affect judgment. It argues for safeguards around the decision process rather than reliance on an individual’s confidence.^[2]

Translate that into preparation. Ask a colleague with relevant expertise to challenge the case. Give that person access to the underlying assumptions. Do not make the coach a substitute for commercial, financial or operational scrutiny.

Rehearse the revision, not the defence

An executive may privately accept that a change is needed and still struggle to say so in front of peers or the board. Coaching should address that moment directly.

Rehearse a short explanation with four elements: the original rationale, the new evidence, the revised position and the consequences. For example:

“We entered this market because we expected repeat demand and a viable service cost. Repeat demand has held up. Service cost has not. I propose pausing expansion while we test a narrower offer. I own the earlier expansion recommendation and will bring the revised economics to the next review.”

That explanation neither erases the original logic nor hides behind changed circumstances. It gives others something specific to examine.

Chris Argyris’s “Teaching Smart People How to Learn” describes how capable professionals can become defensive when their own reasoning and behavior come under scrutiny.^[3] For coaching, the implication is practical: noticing defensiveness is insufficient. The leader needs to practice a different response.

Rehearse receiving a challenge without immediately explaining it away. Ask the colleague to finish. Restate the objection accurately. Then identify whether it changes an assumption, an action or neither. Listening does not require agreement. It requires a fair examination before rebuttal.

Judge the coaching by the next decision

A useful coaching outcome is not a confession, a dramatic reversal or a promise to be more receptive. It is a better-governed decision.

Within the next month, look for observable changes. Did the executive invite scrutiny before seeking approval? Did the decision record distinguish sunk expenditure from future costs and benefits? Were the conditions for continuing, narrowing or stopping the commitment explicit?

Also examine what happened after the decision. A revised strategy creates work. Someone must reset expectations, adjust resources and tell affected teams what no longer takes priority. The leader should own those consequences rather than announce a change and leave others to reconcile conflicting commitments.

Coaching conversations can remain confidential while agreed actions are visible. The coach and executive should establish that boundary at the outset.

For the board or CEO sponsoring coaching, the test is straightforward: can this leader reconsider a personally important position, explain the reasoning and follow through? The objective is not greater willingness to retreat. It is stronger judgment when personal credibility and business evidence pull in different directions.